In many years, architecture school has been facing reality which might confuse both lecturers and students such as, a great deal of school assignment-demand and the least yet low-paid job which future offers. This reality makes the architecture curriculum purposes bias since the hard work does not always contribute to the higher opportunity which students will get in the future. However, some of faculty members still believe that great deal of assignments are still needed in order to achieve particular standard of competency.
Studio-based subjects, for a long time, are the greatest contributor of endless and heavy assignments. Like it or not, lecturers should be honest of the fact that not many students are well-motivated to finish studio-based subjects assignments in strictly limited of time. In our case, we face difficulties on finding the studio-learning formula since the one who achieve pleasing grade, let say, the successful student, is the one who is passionate of becoming architect while the others are easily losing motivation because of the exhaustion and the trauma of doing the work. Thus, this kind of success is not a result of a great studio formula; the well-motivated students will always be motivated while the low-motivated maintains low performance. Hence, the point of heavy assignments is questioned since they fail to motivate low-motivated students to make any improvement.
Another issue, the job which available in architecture field in recent days are no longer promising. The availability is limited so does the salary. As compensation, a big amount of alumni getting the job outside architecture field.
As conclusion, the formula of studio program should be as to the reality in professional world. Perhaps, the studio formula needs to be unique each year in order to fit student’s potential. Or, lecturers need to map student’s strength first before planning assignment any further. It is not unlikely that a new studio formula will appear.
by: Shofia Islamia Ishar